Prigozhin and the End of History

An article by RWA samizdat contributor M Book

20 years have passed since the great corporate merger combining most of Eastern Europe, the Russian LLC, and Pacific Co. Russia will have a chair at the table, headed by the Japan Corporation and Korea’s “The Company.” All business deals involving more than a million yobels will need to be translated into the three languages of trade. Rumor has spread that the Mongol battalion is making headway in South America due to the rapid response of their mechanized cavalry. The Greater American and European alliance claims this is a violation of the Swiss accords and threatens to re-invade California. Russian LLC has formally purchased the rights to the corpse and mind of Francis Fukuyama so that future generations can harass him at the "End of History" museum. In a semi state of permanent hell, he must answer over and again, whether we’re finally at the End of History.

The above statement is obviously in some jest, as I’m more apt to believe Putin will establish a quasi monarchy over Russia before the Wagner PMC will seize control of the country. Nor do I believe that Prigozhin would voluntarily plunge himself into the filth of geopolitics. As a disclaimer, I am not Russian, but NAFO propaganda aside, there is little possibility that the glorious Wagner PMC will seize control of Moscow like Caesar crossing the Rubicon. As of writing, I believe the situation has been resolved. Whatever the resulting action might be, this is a crescendo of the attention that began in February with Russia's formal invasion of the Ukraine. Any person who considers themselves versed in geopolitics must have an opinion, lest they seem uniformed. Thousands of intellectuals are consuming podcasts, videos and think pieces from people whose claim of expertise revolves around knowing the difference between St. Petersburg and Petrograd, or other such surface level knowledge. Once again, Russia takes the world stage to horrify and amaze us all.

Since the second world war there have been precious few wars, and primarily conflicts. Ours has been an age of coups and color revolutions. I don’t mean to minimize the bloodshed, but wars of expansion or territorial disputes were a thing of the past, of a time before The End of History. This perhaps best describes what Fukuyama meant by his declaration that History had seized. There would be no more great wars or bloody revolutions in the style of the Red Revolution of Russia or the French Terror. Instead liberal institutions would pacify the populace and electoral procedures would allow guillotines to rust, their thirst for blood unquenched. Ideally, because elections were being held and votes counted, no one should feel the need to “water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants.” Conventional tyranny was over; we’re all free men.

The evocative name of “The End of History” damned Fukuyama to a life spent receiving snarky emails any time anything of note happened, but not to the point where he’d truly been proven wrong. His thesis being, after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, liberal governments would be the final iteration of human governments. Feudalism, Fascism, Communism and the Third Way, man, would all crumble before the all consuming Liberal democracy. This is partly due to the nature of global economics that many theorize would prevent any major wars from breaking out. For example, the McDonalds peace theory concluded that, due to the pressure of global conglomerates, states would find peaceful resolutions that didn’t threaten profit margins.The End of History also depends on the fact that large scale national conflicts were no longer necessary to exert soft power, both economic and cultural, in order to influence state diplomacy For example, the United States ability to force Europe to hand over precious military equipment to the Ukraine, so that Wagner PMC mercenaries could get a bonus for every vehicle destroyed. This decision was clearly made from pressure from the United States, but not from an overt threat of violence. Expand this idea to immigration or LGBT ideology permeating every faucet of the EU and the effect of The End of History diplomatic power becomes clear.

The gulf wars were an interesting time, but America would not lose. Afghanistan, would be viewed by some as a political failure, others as an economic victory for the military industrial complex. Even the conflicts in Kosovo or Syria demonstrated, rather than invalidated, Fukuyama’s point, because the belligerents all cited peaceful resolutions, trending towards more empowered liberal democracies, rather than de jure claims of territory or direct rule. Even the now forgotten war of Azerbaijan and Armenia doesn’t invalidate Fukuyama’s idea, because he explains that countries such as Azerbaijan and Armenia are in the process of becoming post-historic. Once they reach the level of development of Korea or Latvia, they will no longer be able to justify or execute wars of expansion. To be clear, by “development" I mean adherence to the fount of Liberalism, the United States.

Few nations like Turkey and China have been able to stem the flow of international pressure, but have had to make concessions, like the currently stable relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia. In this sense, The End of History is more of a process we were experiencing, rather than a definitive point in time. The conclusion could be seen as a Pride flag above every capital and Disney movies in every theater. Nigeria will like Germany and vice versa. The resulting conflicts in places like Syria only cemented the End, because it was the flailing of vestigial, legacy systems like the Military’s attempt to bring every corner of the globe into the fold. There are various names for this imperial project, GNC, GAE, Neoliberalism, Globalism or, as Fukuyama puts it, The End of History. I doubt that Fukuyama would have used any of those other terms to describe the process, but the fact many of those words have become synonymous further illustrates his intent. If the Western project had been successful, nations would be no more than economic zones with small regional quirks that allude to those halcyon days of culture, which would be isolated to airports and local festivals. Sure you might be able to buy schnitzel from a German restaurant, but they’ll also serve doner.

However, when the Russian Federation, after substantial antagonization, finally invaded the Ukraine, many of these theories became useless. The clever idea that two nations with similar fast food joints would never go to war was burned to the ground. It made fools of very obnoxious people. I can only sympathize with the torrential flood of emails sent to Fukuyama mocking his idea. This must be vexing to Fukuyama, as he clearly writes out a potential future where the Russian Federation simply declines to join the ranks of Western cultures and forges their own future. Russia is, as Fukuyama writes, “stuck in history.” However, if you look at his theory as I do, as an incremental strategy of the West, you can still say he’s wrong. To justify my argument against the famed political thinker, I rely on the French writer Eugine Ionesco and the current, self proclaimed, Dissident Right

My personal obsession with Russia came honestly to me from literature. I understood this culture from Dostoevsky, Gogol and Bulgakov, among many others. When I encountered the Dissident Right on social medias, I expected them to be more aligned with NATO sensibilities or apathetic to Russia at best. If they cared at all about Russia at all it would be because of Pyotr Wrangel enthusiasts or Dostoevsky’s work “Demons” mocking socialists or “The Idiot” extolling Christian values. Instead I saw immediate support for Russia against Ukraine and international opinion. I doubt whether these people would have felt the same way towards Iraq after 9/11, but perhaps a contrarian streak runs through the movement. Ukraine support became the cause celebre for all of the most reviled enemies of this blooming movement and it stands to reason some might support Russia out of a natural inclination to be against what is popular. Still, NAFO was immediately denounced as pathetic rather than adversarial. American volunteers were mocked rather than hated in a way that at least implies a sort of a respect. Gradually I began to realize that the support for Russia was not out of a support for Putin’s economic theory or the national disdain of LGBT; though I’m sure this was used as justification. Rather, that fascination bordering on obsession that I felt towards a country that seemed as real to me as Natasya from Maugham’s Christmas Holiday, was reverberated by this community. My theory some would come to embrace the Ukraine because the famed Azov battalion was dashed. It was a mystery to me.

Sure some could deduce that the fact the patron saint of the Dissident Right, champion of champions, BAP was Russian could contribute to this support. RWA was, for the most part, a beautiful flower about to bloom with the sudden attention, but importantly to my point, not the cause of it. The zeal for the Russian cause, composed of an amalgamation of anti-nato communists, western nationalists and the occasional bibliophile, had very little to do with established voices, and rather gave credence to many people. It’s possible that Russia unintentionally became the representative of the movement against the End of History. It’s war against that Western hegemony was a siren’s call to many who would also like to see it’s power splintered. Critically, people were unable to stomach the liberal manifest destiny that laid claim to every fiber of civilization and flocked to support whatever resistance sought to overcome it.

Part of this support can be seen in the Post modern book, The Hermit by Romanian born, French author, Eugine Ionesco. The novel follows a man who’s life resembles this End of History. A single man of no prestige or ambition, not particularly favored by any gods, receives an substantial inheritance that allows him to live out his days without having to work in a respectable hotel. His needs becomes that of the living consumer, only having to eat and stave of suicide. While he maintains an inconsequential existence, the town sees a bloody revolution he joins just to feel something. The streets are filled with bloodthirsty citizens who each feel that desire to experience some sense of change or consequence that is so bizarre in our own liberal democratic lives. There is no danger, so the citizens must create their own for a sense of accomplishment. This is the fault with The End of History, it is a hell for the majority of people. All of the anxieties and frustrations of daily life cannot be solved with consumerism and government programs. We are unfortunately unable to enjoy Utopia because we never really cared for it. Perhaps this is part of the curse of being cast out of the Garden of Eden, we are all Cain, never truly able to find peace. Fukuyama does try to reckon with the soul eroding nature of the End of History,

“The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one’s life for a purely abstract goal, the world wide ideological struggle that called for daring, courage, imagination and idealism, will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands.”

Personally, whether out of my own desperation or optimism, I cannot see how the wheels can keep turning. The emptiness of the Wagner threat was a victory for the cult of Nothing we’re beginning to see arise. The idea that nothing will happen, nothing will change, nothing will matter. This is the synthesis of End of History thinking with contemporary cynicism. It’s certainly possible that Russia is a global aberration that does not reflect Western instability, or maybe Houellebecq is right and the big crash is coming. When I was young I've read a Tom Robbins book that argued the fascination we have with explosions or burning buildings comes from a deep seated yearning to see permanent power structures challenged and a brief glimpse of chaos. Whether we will see History return with a vengeance, it’s undeniable that many wish to see some action.

Russia embodied this rejection by it’s denial of NATO encroachment and eventual subsumation by western powers and became a rallying call to every dissident that would like to see their own country reject this supposed inevitability. Should Russia be victorious, this blow to The End of History will sound like a bell to the global populace that perhaps the current regime is not as grounded as it may seem. Most everyone reading this will have their own personal reasons for supporting Russia, but they cannot deny that this war had reinvigorated our sense of history and place in time. Though it might be a blow to the Ukraine and an unfortunate loss of life for innocent men, it is an appetizer for our desire for more war and destruction. The End of History promised a sort of prosperity and peace that many after the World Wars and subsequent Cold War thought they craved. Instead a generation fraught with anxiety and boredom dreams of greater, more heroic conflicts that promise its own horror and devastation. Surrogate tasks and consumption will not be enough. We reject The End of History because we are not gods, we can not handle permanence.